Decision-making analysis for allergen immunotherapy versus nasal steroids in the treatment of nasal steroid-responsive allergic rhinitis

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Facial Candling for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis in Young Adults: A Qualitative Study

Aims:

Facial candling is one of the traditional treatments that is claimed to be able to help in curing or reducing various allergy and inflammation conditions such as allergic rhinitis. We aimed to explore the perceptions of participants with allergic rhinitis toward their disease conditions and facial candling treatment.

Materials and Methods:

The study used a qualitative exploratory design, comprising 12 in-depth interviews. A semi-structured topic guide was used to explore all relevant aspects of the topic, which were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim. All the interviews were conducted in a few beauty salons in purposively selected city areas in the state of Kedah, Malaysia.

Results:

Of the 12 patients, seven (58%) reported a positive experience of facial candling treatment, with improvement in the condition of their allergic rhinitis. Specific themes about the experience of facial candling treatment that were identified within the transcript data included knowledge about facial candling, options for disease treatment, effectiveness of facial candling, sources of information, comparison, application of treatment, treatment budget, and safety. The major strength lies in the fact that reasons for using facial candling were uncovered from the perspectives of people with allergic rhinitis through the in-depth interviews.

Conclusions:

The motives of these participants for using facial candling are mainly due to cultural influence and its low cost of treatment. There were mixed responses from the participants about the usefulness of facial candling. Most of the respondents had not assessed the safety of prolonged use of facial candling and regarded it as a safe procedure as this has been practiced for generations.

Administration and Burden of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in U.S. and Canadian Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is the only available treatment that alters the natural course of allergies and has possible disease-modifying effects. AIT is administered primarily via subcutaneous injection delivered in a physician's office. Few studies have been conducted in the United States or Canada to evaluate the costs of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe SCIT administration processes, resources, and costs and (b) characterize the patient population receiving SCIT.

METHODS

A multisite, prospective, observational time and motion study was conducted. Injection and wait times were collected by a third-party observer on 1 visit for each patient. Extract preparation processes were also observed. Site staff reported on treatment protocols, administrative time, supplies, and patient medical history. Patients responded to questionnaires on demographics, reasons for treatment, medication use, productivity, and travel time. Costs were estimated by applying unit costs to the time observations and the patient- and staff-reported data.

RESULTS

A total of 670 SCIT patients were enrolled at 6 sites in the United States and 6 sites in Canada. Average age in the United States was 41 years (SD = 18) and 44 years (15) in Canada, with 10% of the patients aged ≥ 65 years. Annual incomes were over $100,000 for 40% of U.S. patients and 30% of Canadian patients. U.S. patients had over 4 times as many different allergens in their SCIT treatments as Canadian patients, with a mean of 18 versus 4. The most common reasons reported for starting SCIT was a "desire to cure allergies once and for all" (73%) and that "symptoms are not improved by allergy medications" (60%). Percentages of patients taking allergy medications in the 4 weeks prior to observation were 86% in the United States and 66% in Canada: antihistamines 75% United States, 54% Canada; inhaled corticosteroids 32% United States, 22% Canada. The predominant comorbidity was asthma, 43% United States, 24% Canada. Site protocols for build-up treatment phases were 1 to 2 injections per week for an average of 25 weeks (range 12-52). Maintenance phases were 1 injection every 3 to 4 weeks for an average of 4 years (range 2.5-5). Eight of the sites had total mean staff times per injection visit of 7 to 22 minutes; 1 site averaged fewer minutes, and 3 sites averaged more. Total direct medical costs were an average of $30 for Canadian patients per visit and $32 per visit for U.S. patients, half accounted for by the cost of the extract. Pre- and postinjection administrative tasks were the second largest driver of direct costs. Total injection visit-related time for patients, including round-trip travel time, averaged about 80 minutes per visit in the United States and in Canada.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses revealed substantial variation in SCIT regimens among sites, but the sites had commonalities in the injection process components. SCIT requires patient commitment to a long-term treatment regimen involving numerous clinic visits and resources for administration.

Practical clinical approaches to the allergic rhinitis patient

BACKGROUND

Numerous treatment strategies are available for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR), including environmental controls, pharmacotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgery in appropriately selected patients. A stepwise algorithmic approach based on disease severity and persistence of symptoms is often advocated to effectively manage patients with AR.

METHODS

A review is provided of current evidence and guidelines for the management of AR. Practical clinical strategies to improve patient adherence to therapy and outcome are described.

RESULTS

Algorithms to manage AR are based on the severity and persistence of disease. A tailored strategy geared toward addressing symptoms that are most troublesome to the patient is beneficial, as is the assessment of comorbid conditions such as rhinosinusitis, asthma, and laryngopharyngeal reflux. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is an underused treatment modality and patients with persistent AR should be considered candidates for desensitization, if appropriate. Assessment of patient outcome is important and the use of validated symptom surveys can provide an objective measure of quality of life.

CONCLUSION

A large armamentarium of treatment options is available to the otolaryngologist treating the patient with AR. A step-wise and tailored approach with equal attention dedicated to patient education and assessment of patient outcome can be helpful to improve efficacy of treatment.

Intranasal Steroids and the Myth of Mucosal Atrophy: A Systematic Review of Original Histological Assessments

Background

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCSs) are well established in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, and nasal polyposis. Although reversible atrophy of keratinized skin is seen with corticosteroids, the respiratory mucosa is histologically very different and but concerns remain among patients and some health-care professionals over local side effects on nasal respiratory mucosa. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed of the available evidence for nasal mucosal atrophy as an adverse effect of INCSs in patients with sinonasal disease.

Methods

A systematic search of Embase (1974-) and Medline (1946-) databases to September 27, 2013 was performed. Inclusion criteria selected any study where the histopathology of nasal mucosa was assessed in patients with sinonasal disease using intranasally administered corticosteroids with or without a control group.

Results

Twenty-three hundred sixty-four publications were retrieved with a subsequent full text review of 149 publications for 34 articles that met the selection criteria. These articles included 11 randomized controlled trials, 5 cohorts, and 20 case series. Duration of treatment varied from 5 days to 5.5 years. “Mucosal atrophy” as an outcome was reported in 17 studies. The definition of “mucosal atrophy” was highly variable with a definition given in only 10 studies. One hundred thirty-six patients were represented in controlled studies of atrophy with only one study reporting the event in both groups with an odds ratio of “mucosal atrophy” at 0.51 (95% CI, 0.09-3.11; p = 0.47).

Conclusion

The concept of nasal mucosal atrophy is poorly defined and there is no histological evidence for deleterious effects from INCS use on human nasal mucosa.